User talk:Debm73/sandbox
Feedback on article choice (MF): the desert iguana article is a B class article. I would choose an article that is a star or stub class as there are more gaps that are easy to fill in those. If you really want to pursue the desert iguana article you have to provide good reason for expanding on it. If there is a lot of behavioural research on the organism then that would be a good reason to expand on the B class article
Peer review of article Sepia mestus by user ESE98
Lead evaluationThe reviewed article’s draft lacks a lead section; thus, critiquing the lead is not applicable. The author might have probably decided to use the lead already written in the original article Sepia mestus. Content evaluationOverall, the content of the article is not adequate to fully grasp all the information about the species. In other words, some sections need to be elaborated on such as the dispersal of eggs, and habitat. However, I found that all the discussed information was relevant, and necessary, to the topic discussion. Moreover, the sections add valuable information on aspects such as mobility and anatomy that were not introduced in the original article. All the presented information is, indeed, up to date as the resources it was drawn form did not precede year 2000. However, drawing information from a wide variety of resources as opposed to only a few might help strengthening and expanding the scope of the article.Tone and balance evaluationThe presented information is discussed in an unbiased manner. Sources and references evaluationAll the information presented in the article’s draft is drawn from peer-reviewed journal articles or published books which ensures that the information is credible and reliable. Moreover, the resources are – as mentioned earlier – up to date which ensures that the discussed information in not outdated or undermined. However, drawing information from more resources might be more helpful on expanding the article and elaborating on the under-developed sections.Organization evaluationThe order in which the sections were constructed in is logical, making it easier for the reader to follow. Overall, the draft is very well organized! However, the length of the sections does not well reflect the importance of these sections to the topic discussion.Images and media evaluationThe added images are well-chosen and help making the article engaging to the reader. None of the captioned images violate Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. Adding another image that represents the anatomy of the animal would be helpful, but overall, the topic is very well visually represented.Overall evaluationOverall, nice work! The information presented in the draft enhance the overall quality of the article. The draft is very well-organized, and no noticeable grammatical errors were observed. However, elaborating on some of the sections might be necessary. ESE98 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)